Friends in odd places: A wide spectrum of groups file support for Christian Legal Society case 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Whirled Views 3.4
Good morning!
Today’s quote is from a scientist: “Science can only determine what is, but not what shall be, and beyond its realm, value judgements remain indispensable. Religion, on the other hand, is concerned only with evaluating human thought and actions; it is not qualified to speak of real facts and the relationships between them.”
Topic: Watercooler Chatter, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top57 Comments to “Whirled Views 3.4”
From yesterday:
5. Gravatar by EYG 03.03.08 at 10:48 pm
Karen O,
Thank you for asking!
Chavez is crazy and dangerous. He continues to move toward war. I spoke to my parents and they confirmed that this is indeed a problem.
He hates democracy. Colombia is the only US ally in South America. I hope it doesn’t become a full scale war. I don’t want that for Colombia.
Thank you for praying. We are praying, too. Please also pray for my parent’s and the country’s safety.
Thank you for remembering my family in this.
Report comment to moderator
Your family has my prayers, EYG.
Hope MomofFour is feeling better today as well.
Report comment to moderator
EYG – Thanks for answering, & you’re welcome for the prayers. It’s a scary world we live in, but God tells us to fear not. (Easier said than done at times.)
Report comment to moderator
I see that the founder of the weather channel has suggested suing global warming alarmists and sellers of carbon credits – including AlGore – to expose their fraud masquerading as science. I think that’s a great idea.
http://tinyurl.com/2wu3zz
Report comment to moderator
I had a biology teacher once, and he was talking about global warming and what a problem it was. And then he quickly flashed a graph of the world’s temperature up on the screen, that was like /|/|/|/
And I was wondering what the big hullabaloo was over global warming, if it really does happen ever 1500 years like that…
The funny thing, to me, was that after putting said graph on his power point, the professor skipped right by it and continued talking about what a disaster global warming was, etc.
Can someone please tell me how this go-round is different than the last times?
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t sound like a very good scientist. First: Science can only determine what is, but not what shall be
Many times, we can figure out what shall be based on what is and what has been. It’s called forecast and weathermen do it all the time.
Second: Religion, on the other hand, is concerned only with evaluating human thought and actions
Religion cares about evaluating human thought and actions? Considering all the rules and threats, it seems more concerned with “controlling” than “caring”.
Funny how much people depend on science and scientists for everything from energy to food to communication to transportation, you know, things that affect them physically. So many unkind words. Some call it biting the hand that feeds you. And yet religion, which provides nothing physical, gets not a single word of criticism. Not one. Science doesn’t discriminate against American citizens who have broken no law, but science bad, religion good.
Go figure.
Report comment to moderator
Galadriel asks: “Can someone please tell me how this go-round is different than the last times?”
This time there’s money to be made.
Report comment to moderator
“Many times, we can figure out what shall be based on what is and what has been. It’s called forecast and weathermen do it all the time.”
And we all know how accurate the weatherman is…
Man you’re funny. Did you think about that before you posted?
Report comment to moderator
The real world doesn’t always work the way we hope. But, with the addition of weather satalites and computer models, weather prediction is more accurate today than ten years ago. Once again: So many unkind words. Some call it biting the hand that feeds you.
You totally proved my point. And yet not a single unkind word for magical religion.
Report comment to moderator
As a follow-up for all you fans of Same Kind of Different As Me, I have it on good authority that Denver Moore, the hero, has learned to read–just in time to read portions of his book aloud at Barbara Bush’s Family Literacy event in D.C. this May.
Fabulous!
Report comment to moderator
I’m surprised that Lynn isn’t bemoaning liberal California today with mad force. I pretty much thought that yesterday was a warm up. Maybe she has not been reading the news, which would not surprise me i suppose.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, please be specific, the liberal government here in CA is always giving us something to bemoan, but I can’t think of anything that happened yesterday.
Today, however, the state supreme court takes up the matter of same-sex marriage. In spite of overwhelming votes at least twice to keep marriage to the thousands-year-old tradition of one-man, one-woman, there is still a group trying to force a minority view on the majority.
All of you in favor of same-sex marriage can now jump all over me, believing that this comment says more than it does.
Report comment to moderator
I’m surprised that Lynn isn’t bemoaning liberal California today with mad force. I pretty much thought that yesterday was a warm up. Maybe she has not been reading the news, which would not surprise me i suppose.
Hmmm…an unprovoked broadside from Luke, which does not surprise me I suppose.
Report comment to moderator
“You totally proved my point. And yet not a single unkind word for magical religion.”
Um… no I didn’t. The Global Warming Scare is a hyped up bunch of quasi-scientific nonsense. All the computer models are unreliable, not to mention inaccurate – how accurate are the predictions again? The problem I see with the Global Warming Scaremongers is that they don’t give a damn about “peer review” because they’re trying to squelch all dissent. I’m sorry, that’s not going to work… Because I am a dissenter, and insist that this “work” be peer reviewed, you say I “bite the hand that feeds me”? What a laugh. No sir, I’m simply insisting on that vaunted, scientifically based “peer review” that you worship….
Here’s what you said:
First you say science cannot tell us what shall be, then you turn around and say it can tell us what shall be, and give as proof the predictions of the weatherman – which as we all know, is more art than science many times. There are simply too many variables. And then you have the gall to turn that around on me and say I’m biting the hand that feeds me. I’m doing NO such thing. Get a grip on yourself and adjust your caricature of christians to fit reality.
And why, pray tell, should I say something unkind about religion? Because you disrespect it so, and fail to see any value whatsoever in it? That’s not a good reason I’m afraid. You are still the same person who cannot see connection between world views and “science” are you not? If you can’t see past that, then I’m afraid I’m not going to respect your opinion simply because you’re ignorant about philosophy and it’s influence on science.
Report comment to moderator
Looking for advice on dealing with water in the basement…
We’ve lived in this house two and a half years, and have had no trouble with leaks previously (that is, leaks from outside – we had problems with the central air unit and the water heater, but those were clearly something to bring in a plumber to fix). We had a very warm day Sunday and a lot of the ice and snow (of which there was lots) melted. Sunday evening my son noticed a wet spot in the carpet, which I traced back to the wall. It’s a mostly finished basement, so it’s hard to see where the water comes from. By last night the water had spread across a whole (small) room. We’ve put out towels to try to soak some of it up, and set up the dehumidifier nearby, but there’s so much water (not enough to see standing water but the shag carpet that came with the house is sopping wet) that they’re not having much effect. My husband wonders if more is still coming in, and whether it could be pipes in the wall rather than a leak from outside (since he can’t find anyplace outside where he sees water collecting on the ground).
I’ll call the plumber if that’s likely to be the problem, but if it’s a leak from outside he won’t be much help. The wall is covered in paneling – cheap stuff, I’m guessing, but I’m not eager to start pulling it off unless it’s necessary.
Someone suggested a rug shampooer to clean up the water, which I’ll look into. Any other suggestions?
Report comment to moderator
That was the news item I was referring to. You can watch the court live.
http://www.calchannel.com/webcast.htm
I’m not found of the guy talking now.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
Do you have a sump pump?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
I’m pretty sure we do not. Our previous houses did have sump pumps, and they were pretty obvious. It wouldn’t be hidden somewhere that I could live there three years and not know about it, would it?
Report comment to moderator
Ah, but Luke, you said in #10 “yesterday was a warm up.” What did that mean?
And why the snarky remark about Lynn not reading the news?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, you’d know. Ours has run several times a week, which is hard to miss!
Unfortunately, I have no idea how to help since the basement is finished. My only suggestion is to call one of those waterproofing companies–one with all the proper certification, of course. Sorry for the mess and frustration!
Report comment to moderator
And why the snarky remark about Lynn not reading the news?
Perhaps because Luke forgets that my job is to write the news…? (I’ll be interviewing the attorneys after oral arguments)
Report comment to moderator
Kayvee,
Lynn just sounded particularly bemoaned with California yesterday.
Legal people, right now a man representing the AG is speaking. Is it that uncommon for the AG to show up himself to talk to the Supreme Court?
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone see where the latest “Holocaust memoir” turned out to be completely made up? What’s this make, like 100 completely phony holocaust memoirs now?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
How about a heavy duty wet/dry vacuum? That should be able to pull the water out of the carpet, but of course the first priority is finding where it is coming in. Sorry you have such a mess on your hands. The hardest part isn’t going to be getting rid of the water. It will be getting rid of the smell.
Report comment to moderator
#13: adjust your caricature of christians to fit reality.
reality
re·al·i·ty [ ree állətee ] (plural re·al·i·ties)
Definition:
1. real existence: actual being or existence, as opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature
2. all that exists or happens: everything that actually does or could exist or happen in real life
3. something that exists or happens: something that has real existence and must be dealt with in real life
a vision that ignores the realities of the business world
4. type of existence: an existence or universe, either connected with or independent from other kinds
fantastic notions of alternative realities
5. philosophy totality of real things: the totality of real things in the world, independent of people’s knowledge or perception of them in reality in actual fact
mysticism
mys·ti·cism [ místə sìzzəm ]
Definition:
1. belief in intuitive spiritual revelation: the belief that personal communication or union with the divine is achieved through intuition, faith, ecstasy, or sudden insight rather than through rational thought
2. spiritual system: a system of religious belief or practice that people follow to achieve personal communication or union with the divine
3. confused and vague ideas: vague or unsubstantiated thought or speculation about something
supernatural
su·per·nat·u·ral [ spər náchərəl ]
Definition:
1. not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
2. relating to deity: relating to or attributed to a deity
3. magical: relating to or attributed to magic or the occult
You see, no connection between reality and the occult.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – in three years’ time, you would have heard a sump pump kick on periodically as needed.
It sounds like maybe you have a broken pipe in the wall. Is it near your outside faucet? If it is, did you cut off the water to the outside faucet for the winter and leave the spigot open to drain all the water from the pipe? A pipe that freezes (and breaks) in the winter will often show itself when the weather warms up and the water in it thaws.
The other possibility is maybe you have a crack in the foundation that lets in groundwater. It sounded like a lot of water for this one. Can you see a verticle crack from the outside at or near the ground level?
We have had both broken pipes and cracks in the poured concrete basement walls. In fact, just before Christmas, we had to have the cracks filled because ground water was seeping in.
Our house does have a sump pump – a good investment, but expensive to put in after the fact if the builder didn’t install one.
Report comment to moderator
Another “memoir”, Love and Consequences, about a half Native American/half white girl growing up in and out of foster homes and getting caught up in the gang culture of LA, has also been recalled by the publisher after they discovered it was also a pack of lies. And this book was set to be a big, big seller. The author got a big write up in NYT Magazine, with lots of photos, etc. Unfortunately for the author, her sister happened to see the piece and recognized her. She called the publisher and told them the book was fiction, not a memoir, and that was that.
Of course, last week you had God’s man in the White House, Karl Rove’s liaison to the evangelical community, resigning for plagiarism. Turns out that over the past few years he’s submitted scores of op-ed pieces to newspapers, and most of them have been plagiarized.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
The outside faucet it on a different side of the house. We didn’t cut off water to it – never thought of it, don’t even know where to shut it off. But the water definitely started on the side of the house, and the faucet is in the back, about halfway around to the far side.
My husband examined the ground and walls on the side where the water seems to be coming from, and can’t find any sign of trouble above ground, either cracks in the wall or wet ground (though now that the temperature has fallen well below freezing again, it’s hard to tell).
I’ll be trying the wet vac this afternoon.
Report comment to moderator
Oh bravo for you. You know how to use a dictionary. clap, clap. whoo. You still have, apparently, an endless capacity to miss the point…. You have proven my point instead. You see absolutely no value in religion, dismissing it merely as stupid, mystical, magic, with no redeeming value whatsoever. And then obtusely enough, you wish a hearing by those whom you have just denigrated. You spout lies about them, and then wish to have them agree with you? That is stupid, bigoted, and insensitive don’t you think?
Your caricature, dear sir, is that you make up this lie about christians, not that they believe in the supernatural, but that they hate science, and that thinking adults could not possibly believe in such a thing as the supernatural. You ignore countless great minds down through history, all of which belonged to Christians, who not only believed in the supernatural, but who also contributed a great deal to the scientific achievements and knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
For all you fans of Same Kind of Different as Me, I have it on reliable authority that Denver Moore has learned to read–so that he can read aloud from his own book at a Barbara Bush literary event in D.C. this May.
Fabulous!
Report comment to moderator
#28: countless great minds down through history
How many “great minds” of history would still believe in the occult if they knew what we know today?
#28: You see absolutely no value in religion
Just because I don’t doesn’t mean others don’t. It just means I don’t. I don’t even care if others believe in the supernatural or worhip spirits and such. Don’t care at all. However, I don’t think discrimination against innocent American citizens based on the occult is correct either. I don’t believe an attempt to discredit or change science to match the arcane is correct. It’s much closer to very wrong. In fact, it’s unpatriotic because it’s a threat to the country. I don’t think it’s correct or even “moral” to discredit those who have no supernatural leanings simply because they have no occult beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Ooh, fantastic argument, donato. The difference between “reality” and “mysticism” completely disproves the existence of God!
Beyond the obvious question of what particular dictionary you’re using, the definition of reality (apart from a Cause) is inherantly circular. What is reality? Well, it’s what’s real. What’s real? Everything in reality. Reality is nothing without causality. Your move, Kasparaov.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – I hope its something easily fixed. Keep us posted on how it turns out.
Report comment to moderator
“How many “great minds” of history would still believe in the occult if they knew what we know today?”
Aheh… Well there are still plenty of great minds that belong to folks who are still alive. In fact these people even believe in, ‘gasp’ the supernatural. Suppose you ask them bright boy? I know quite a few scientists who happend to be Christians right here in my own town. And they are hardly stupid people. But you wouldn’t know it from the things you say….
“I don’t even care if others believe in the supernatural or worhip spirits and such. Don’t care at all.”
Now that’s a whopper right there…. didn’t yo mamma teach you not to lie?
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
Here is part of my latest analysis of George Washington’s religious creed:
For the rest, the here:
http://positiveliberty.com/2008/03/smith-on-washingtons-faith.html
Question, does this sound like what you consider “real Christianity,” or something else?
Report comment to moderator
Book Report Alert:
I have just finished reading American Crescent by Iman Hassan Qazwini.
It’s a fairly interesting book, but I don’t especially recommend it. Some highlights:
He explains how Shia and Sunni originated and some of the differences. Basically, Shia believe a descendent of Mohammed should be the leader of Islam. That is, Shi’atu = followers of Ali (Mohammed’s son).
Sunni follow the sunna, sayings and traditions of Mohammed. The differences seem trivial to us, but very serious to them.
The author’s full name is Imam Sayed Hassan al-Qazwini. Which says he is (Imam) a religious leader who can trace his lineage back to Mohammed, (”Sayed” means master and his lineage gives an honorary title.) So anyone who has Sayed in his name is a descendant of Mohammed. “Hassan” is a given name, like Charles. al-Qazwini means he came from Qazwini. We are familiar with that. “al” is a definite article, or “the”.
He discusses the Twelve Imams, and especially the last, who is very important. The Qaem (Al-Mahdi, the Guided One) is the twelfth and will return with Jesus in a time of turmoil and set things right.
He says there are two essential doctrines which separate Christianity and Islam: The person of Christ (i.e. the Trinity) and original sin. Essentially, the big difference is who Jesus is.
To Islam he is a major prophet.
He equates Al-Jazera to FoxNews. Some here would agree.
He names the American bin Ladens: Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Vines (past SBC president) and the late Jerry Falwell. Some here would agree.
(Personal comment here. I tend to agree with his reasoning, I except Ann Coulter from these comments. In Acts 19, there is an uproar in Ephesus. The town clerk comes and says to the crowd, “For ye have brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.” That, and Paul at Athens, says to me that Paul never dispariaged anyone’s object of worship. He preached Jesus as Lord. That’s enough. Leave it to Coulter and others to warn us about Islam. I have done that myself.) Qazwini likes Billy Graham.
On p. 178 he says, “The Bush administration had a dream, but not a plan.” He is partly correct in that they didn’t understand the scope of the problem. But we know from Shadow Warriors that moles in the administration prevented execution of some of the plans.
Several interesting stories about the cruelty of Sadaam. p. 196, he tells about the capture of a student at Baghdad University who was plotting against Sadaam. They tortured him for eleven days, finally just before he died, he said “Sabah”, no last name. No problem. They just killed every student named Saba, 300 of them.
He says Christians emphasize the love of God, Muslems, His mercy.
Now, you know everything worth knowing from the book. It is an interesting read, and I recommend reading it after: Terrorist Hunter, Shadow Warriors, What Went Wrong and The Truth About Mohammed.
Report comment to moderator
Chas – who is the author of Shadow Warriors?
Report comment to moderator
#35: But we know from Shadow Warriors that moles in the administration prevented execution of some of the plans.
Considering how his other plans turned out, I think we should all feel a sense of relief.
Seriously, watching Bush talk, it’s obvious he is not the brightest bulb in the closet. Come on, he didn’t know the difference between Shiite and Sunni.
The Bush dream was to ride a tank at the head of a formation with all straps pulled tight into the city of Baghdad. Grateful people would be lining the streets holding baskets and armloads of flowers. The only thing he would need to dodge would be bunches of flowers and an occasional bit of hard candy. The world would see him at the bringer of enlightenment and democracy to the Middle East.
The guy lives in a Marvel Comic. He had no understanding of these people because he understands so little himself. He even believes the jury is out on evolution. Just that alone should tell you plenty.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, I have a question, and I hope I can put it into words properly. I’m so afraid of insulting people here.
As you know from posting on this blog, there are Christians who go to church all the time, sing in the choir, they’re really involved. Then there are those who are certainly believers, probably attend service but maybe they’re not as involved. Is it possible that Washington was raised a Christian and was a believer, but perhaps the kind of guy who had other interests as well. Not everyone is gung ho, let’s say, like the local minister. Maybe being a Christian was not something he thought a lot about.
Report comment to moderator
“The person of Christ (i.e. the Trinity) and original sin.”
That’s interesting because these are two key doctrines that Unitarians of whom America’s key Founders disproportionately were — including possibily George Washington (see my above post) –likewise disbelieved. I’ve seen some keen Islam sites take note of this and attempt to draw some parallel between America’s Unitarian Founding Fathers like Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin (and some others).
Again with the semantic terms: Those key Founders tended to understand themselves as “Christians” (”unitarian Christians” or “rational Christians”) not Deists. And what they believed the orthodox considered (and still consider) “heresy.”
Should we say that America’s key Founders (the first 4 Presidents, Ben Franklin & some others) weren’t “Christians” (regardless of how they understood themselves)? Or should we call them “Christian heretics”? I’ve seen some note that Islam qualifies as a Christian heresy. If Islam qualifies as a “Christian heresy” then so too does the creed of America’s key Founders.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, I just saw your question about the AG. I can’t tell you what the usual procedure is in California, but it is not uncommon on a major case for an AG to present the oral argument. He is the lawyer in chief for the state. The big guy has a tendency to want the publicity.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t buh-LIEVE noone’s gotten the quote yet!
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
What I’ve concluded is that Washington perhaps thought of himself as a Christian in some broad loose sense of the term (even if he didn’t, given he was an Anglican/Episcopalian, he qualifies as a “Christian” according to that broad understanding). And he absolutely believed in an active personal God, prayer and the importance of “religion” for promoting morality. However, he seems utterly agnostic on doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, and atonement. Others, like Jefferson and Adams actively disbelieved in these doctrines. Washington seems not to have thought or cared about them. If you believe in God, but are agnostic on those doctrines then what kind of “Christian” are you? I know plenty of theological liberals that don’t really have a problem with that kind of “Christianity.” But from what I’ve heard from evangelicals (and devout Catholics) this is not “real Christianity.” Indeed, they like to quote Jesus speaking of the narrow path. America’s key Founders including Washington, if they qualified as “Christians” at all, do not seem to be the “narrow path” types.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Lynn, even I can get it if I google it: Albert Einstein.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Jesus said narrow is the gate and few there be who find it. Washington can no longer be cross-examined regarding his beliefs, so I don’t know his heart on this one. When everything is said and done, however, no matter what I may think of another Christian, it isn’t up to me to judge whether or not the person is a “real” Christian. Many here consider the Roman Catholic Church as not really Christian, but I would find it hard to believe that John Paul II or the current pope are not “real” Christians. That’s a judgment better left to God, I think. I’m not competent to decide that one. I will agree with you that many of our Founders didn’t believe in certain doctrines, but the truth is we all fudge quite a bit when you think about it; we’re just not “famous.” The Founders were bright men and I think they fell prey to trusting in their own reason at times far too much. The only thing I can think of that would “disqualify” anyone would be the failure to believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. If you don’t believe in him, you’ve missed it. Some of the Founders might have a problem there, they certainly weren’t gung ho religioso if you get my drift, but only God can determine that.
Report comment to moderator
We had a very severe thunderstorm here but the sun’s out now with no apparent damage. Make it Man must have had it earlier. Tornado watches are still out south of here.
KLasko: Shadow Warriors by Kenneth R. Timmerman. The subtitle: “The untold story of traitors, saboteurs, and the party of surrender.” It has a good index which I use to identify people. (e.g. Bill Gertz, in this week’s Washington Times tells about intelligence battles between intelligence analysts over China’s military buildup. He names Thomas Fingar as one who believes “We judge that any Chinese regeme, including a democratic one, would have similar goals.” Suggesting that China is a normal state, not a nuclear armed dictatorship. Timmerman discusses Fingar and his estimates of Iranian nuclear capabilities as being of no consequence until mid “next decade”.)
He is especially hard on Democrats for torpedoing almost every item for America’s defense, where they politically could. He comes down hard on Bush too. But not for the illogical reasons we often see here. Bush came in trying to be nice, and didn’t realize that he was in a political war. I fault him for that too. I don’t approve of Bush for letting two Border Patrol agents stay in jail for doing their job. The prosecuting attorney is a friend of his. To me, that’s an abomination. He also let Scooter Libby go to jail because he was tricked into a lie about a case he had nothing to do with. Terrible thing.
BTW, Qazwint likes the democrats too. “U.S. Congressman John Dingell is a living treasure…”
Report comment to moderator
I don’t mean to monopolize this thread, but that’s what I’m about to do while I’m here.
I like to read Jon Rowe’s posts because I like history and am interested in the founders. However, many times I’ve asked myself, “What’s the significance of this”. Often, it’s none. By that, I mean: Our country was founded on Christian principles, regardless of what Washington, Jefferson or Franklin, et. al. wrote in their letters. A professor was quoting Ben Franklin on a moral issue once. A student said, “Franklin was no angel!” The professor answered, “No, he wasn’t, but he was smart.” America is, regardless of what some here might say, has been a light, and saviour of the world. That is because we have a unique Constitution undeniably Christian principles, regardless of the personal beliefs of the various participants.
Someone once said that it was the Winchester and six shooter that tamed the west. I say, it was the schoolmarms and preachers that tamed the west.
ENOUGH!
Report comment to moderator
The key Founders of whom I speak thought at the very least Jesus a great moral teacher. They also may have considered him a “savior” (I’ve heard Franklin refer to him as such) but 1) not because of His atoning death, but because of his perfect moral example, modeling which would lead men to salvation (they believed men were saved through works, not faith) and 2) if other religions, even those that didn’t follow Jesus, likewise produced moral men, those religions were valid ways to God. So no, they didn’t believe Jesus the “only” way. This was without question the creed of Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams, and probably the creed of Washington, Madison, and Hamilton, who at the very end of his life, after his son died, became an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Scooter didn’t go to jail. Bush pardoned that part of the sentence, as I recall.
However one views the Founders, the country was definitely founded on Christian principles. It’s what the overwhelming majority understood to be the basis of their entire existence, their way of life. The founding of the country is not the problem. It is the erosion of those basic principles, those givens, that subverts the country. If you change the basic premise, you can do things with the Constitution that will curl and/or straighten your hair. That’s why Christians cannot allow those who believe in relativism to undermine the country.
Report comment to moderator
“the country was definitely founded on Christian principles.”
I would agree that Christian principles were a way of life from “below” (the culture) as opposed to “above” (the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution) which tended to be more novel, a-biblical, philosophical ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, boo. I asked a relatively controversial and completely honest question and nobody answered it at all.
Report comment to moderator
OK, here I am again>
Galdariel, the difference is money. You’re too young to remember (I can tell.), but thirty years ago, we were threatened by “the coming Ice age”. But, how can you exploit that. So, we now have man made global warming. That’s important because that means when you breathe you create CO2, which is going to kill everyone but you. But you can mitigate that by buying Al Gore’s books and “carbon credits”. That is minor though. The important thing is that it gives government almost complete control of your life. Do you realize that after 2012 you will not be able to buy incandescent bulbs? You have to buy those mercury lamps that are expensive and will kill you if you break it. (OK, I realize I’m overstating my case here, but only somewhat.)
It is a government approved scam.
Don’t you wish you hadn’t reminded me?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer:
I don’t take a position on whether Mother Teresa was a true Christian. (She was indeed a “good person,” but she was a member of a religion that believes good works earn merit before God. Did she trust in Jesus alone for her salvation? I don’t know. I tend to believe she did love Jesus.)
I do take a (tentative) position on the faith of popes, however: The head of a religious system that leads people away from faith in Christ alone–and who, in the case of John Paul at least, adamantly denied salvation by faith alone–is under great accountability before God, and will at the very least receive His judgment and not His praise for His leadership of a heretical religious system. I know little about the current pope. The previous one leaned toward installing official worship of Mary and spoke out strongly against salvation by faith alone. Both points make me tend to think he was not a true Christian. If he was somehow a true Christian, I am sure he has since his death experienced sorrow over his lifetime “achievement” in leading others astray.
I’m not “judging,” but pointing out public evidence from his own life that his beliefs did not match up with biblical faith. I do think that a person who gets to be head of a false religious organization, and doesn’t repudiate it, is unlikely to be a Christian, but I think there’s also specific evidence in John Paul’s case against his being a believer.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D, & NJL. On the one hand, Jesus said, “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it.” Yet, Paul says, Romans 10:9 “If you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.” I know some in the Methodist and Pentecostal traditions who believe that salvation depends on works, by that, they say you can fall from grace.
I say, If I’m not saved by works, what work will lose me? I hope I haven’t changed the subject here.
Report comment to moderator
#46: He is especially hard on Democrats for torpedoing almost every item for America’s defense, where they politically could.
That’s a flat out lie. Bush got Democratic support on lies, by some estimates, over 900, which he didn’t even need since both houses were controlled by the Republicans. This is fantasy. Even common sense will tell you it’s not true.
It’s Bush that has been borrowing billions from China to pay for Iraq. Tell me you know that!!!!
#47: Our country was founded on Christian principles
Christians who were escaping religious persecution from other Christians founded our country. Surely you know that. The religious persecution they escaped was so severe, limits to religion were written into our constitution to protect us from other Christians and religion in general. Not atheists, there is not protections written into the constitution against atheists, just religion.
#47: That is because we have a unique Constitution undeniably Christian principles
All men are created equal. Personal freedom. Personal happiness. Liberty. These things are far from, not only Christianity, but all religions. Actually, this is the main reason the Muslims hate us. They feel our lives should be dedicated to a mystical spirit and not personal happiness. They feel that we should be dedicated to this mysterious, invisible God.
#54: Yet, Paul says, Romans 10:9 “If you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.”
What that is really saying is that you be as bad and dirty as you want, just say “I believe in Jesus” and you will go to heaven. The story is certainly reinforced with the two criminals hanging on crosses next to Jesus. Neither one did anything good ever, but one said, I believe and Jesus said, “Good, you go to heaven”. NOT a good message and certainly not very moral.
Report comment to moderator
NJ wins! Thank Google I can now award the digital cappucino before heading off to sons’ school’s state tournament basketball game!…
~~@)
:-
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
I appreciate your research and sharing what you learn with us, especially on Scripture and on Islam, thanks.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!